Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Does Anyone Know Obama's Grand Strategy on IS?

Obama's leadership on the Islamic State is in a worse shambles than usual with this administration. Over the weekend the position went from 'IS as a regional menace', to 'an imminent international threat that requires war in Syria', and back again. This is not a strategy for dealing with IS.



Over the weekend Gen. Martin Dempsey did a shocking U-turn, saying ISIS is not currently plotting or planning attacks against the U.S. or Europe.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said last Thursday. 
“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated. Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.” (Source) 
But on Monday Dempsey made a U-turn and said IS is no immediate threat. (Source) Actually the idea to attack IS in Syria was a major departure from the awkward contradiction of supporting IS in Syria while fighting it in Iraq. The Obama regime now appears to have returned to that position. So what is going on?

According to Yossef Bodansky (wiki) this administration was so much in bed with ISIS (then known as "the moderate Syrian resistance" that they may have assisted the false flag chemical attack that was blamed on the Assad regime. (Source) (More evidence) In fact we posed the question at the time "Why Didn't the Obama Admin Give Warming About the Chemical Attack".

This morning there were reports that American Air Force jets were making recognizance flights over Syria. Obama may be saying one thing publicly, while factually doing another. Or perhaps none of the above is the case. Who knows? 

Obama's foreign policy on Syria, Iraq and the Caliphate is now full circle. There is no hope of combating the most brutal, dangerous and destabilizing force since World War II, as long as our politicians don't grasp the facts. (Source)

Angelo Codevilla has analyzed what a strategy might look like. Here's a Must Read article:

If You Want To Stop ISIS, Here Is What It Will Take:

Killing the Islamic State requires neither more nor less than waging war.

The Islamic State’ video-dissemination of one of its goons beheading an American is an existential challenge from which we cannot afford to shrink. Until the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS) did that, it made sense for the U.S. government to help contain it because the Islamic world, which the IS threatens most directly, must destroy it sooner or later. But internetting that beheading was a gory declaration of America’s impotence—a dare-by-deed that is sure to move countless young persons around the globe to get in on killing us, anywhere they can. The longer the Islamic State survives, the more will take up its dare. Either we kill the IS, or we will deserve the wave of terrorism that will engulf us. (Top Read)

The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs on Thursday: "Fight IS also in Syria". 


Related

Posted by at